What do feminists want?

[epepke]

Sorry. The reason this is bizarre is because you are defaulting to the masculine perspective. If you are in an enclosed space with a stranger, you want to be able to engage the woman the same way you would a man. i.e. approach them casually without a thought for how it might make them feel.

We know that both men and women experience violence and sexual assault. Wouldn't it make more sense to default, in this case, to a perspective more often shared by women. Which is to say that both genders should be approached carefully because the situation might be intimidating.

Ah, OK.

 

[epepke]

Actually, I wish there were another word for it.

There is a perfectly good term, and you already know what it is, so don't pretend you don't. The term is "Women's Liberation."

 

[Ysidro]

I didn't start this thread in response to that particular video. I started this thread in response to the blitzkrieg I witnessed at the battle of Pharyngula this past weekend and the skirmishes that followed in assorted areas.

Further, I did state, in this very thread, my position on the specific topic of creepergate. Post #68,



I'm not sure what I did to deserve the rest of your condescending reply.

Fair enough. I'm more than a little annoyed at the folks who are trying to shout Rebecca and other woman down.

Perhaps I've jumped the gun, I'm too tired and upset at my fellow skeptics to go through all of the Pharyngula comments. I already hate most of my fellow humans. That said, people give me very good reasons to hate them lately.

That said, some people have very good reasons for getting militant and you or I aren't in a position to know what it's like.

 

[Delvo]

explain how my view of equality is "really bizarre."

Because you're using the wrong word for it. You treat "equal" as if it meant "identical, the same in every way". It doesn't. It means of the same value, not greater or less. For example:

6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0

Every "three" is higher than every "two" and lower than every "four". That's because its value is less than 4 and greater than 2. But there are three "threes" to the left and right of each other in different colors. So they have some different traits from each other (color and location along the left-right line) but are equal, having the same value.

 

[epepke]

Because you're using the wrong word for it. You treat "equal" as if it meant "identical, the same in every way". It doesn't. It means of the same value, not greater or less.

Explain to me how I'm doing that.

Am I perhaps not giving enough merit to "separate but equal"?

 

[bookitty]

Explain to me how I'm doing that.

Am I perhaps not giving enough merit to "separate but equal"?

It's a bit like white people saying "If everyone is supposed to be equal, why can't I use the n-word." They can't because there is a complicated history behind the word and it has modern social implication. There is nothing stopping them from using the word. In the US, it's not even illegal. The only reason they "can't" is because there will be repercussions. So what they are really saying is "I want to say a certain thing but without any repercussions." It's not about equality at all. Ignoring the very real social implications is dismissing their experiences and dehumanizing them.

So there is no reason that you can't treat a women the same way that you would treat a man. You just can't do it without repercussions because men and women have a different history and events have different social impact. By ignoring all the social implications, you are dismissing their experiences and dehumanizing them.

 

[bookitty]

There is a perfectly good term, and you already know what it is, so don't pretend you don't. The term is "Women's Liberation."

Dude, even my mom who still sings Helen Reddy in the car wouldn't use that term. It's a wee bit antiquated.

 

[epepke]

Dude, even my mom who still sings Helen Reddy in the car wouldn't use that term. It's a wee bit antiquated.

Feminism is a term from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Which makes it Not Antiquated?

 

[Delvo]

Am I perhaps not giving enough merit to "separate but equal"?

Different but equal. Nobody here has seriously suggested separating men & women.

 

[epepke]

It's a bit like white people saying "If everyone is supposed to be equal, why can't I use the n-word." They can't because there is a complicated history behind the word and it has modern social implication. There is nothing stopping them from using the word. In the US, it's not even illegal. The only reason they "can't" is because there will be repercussions. So what they are really saying is "I want to say a certain thing but without any repercussions." It's not about equality at all. Ignoring the very real social implications is dismissing their experiences and dehumanizing them.

That's a good response, and I am beginning to get the idea of how I differ from you.

See, I can use "the n-word" (and I'm only using that because I think that spelling out the anagram of "ginger" would get me a warning). I used it today, and I used it yesterday, in the company of three lovers. One of them has very dark skin. The others have light skin. However, the latter two are also Jewish, though neither is theistic. (I also used the k-word and a few other *-words, but I ran out.)

Lenny Bruce once said, "I want to say (the n-word) over and over again until it loses all of it's meaning." I agree with him. Yeah, it can be risky--didn't he wind up in jail a few times? Still, I think we live in a better world because he did.

So there is no reason that you can't treat a women the same way that you would treat a man. You just can't do it without repercussions because men and women have a different history and events have different social impact. By ignoring all the social implications, you are dismissing their experiences and dehumanizing them.

Right.

So there are a couple of things here. One might as well be termed pragmatic. Of course, if I treat a woman the same way I treat a man, there is a chance that she won't like it. It is my responsibility, and my responsibility alone, to handle that if it happens, and to ensure that it doesn't happen in the first place if I don't want it to. Here, I am treating women the same way that I am treating men, in that I am assuming that they are rational agents who can talk about things, even challenging and unpleasant things. I'm really not about to stop doing that. Still, in-person relationships are different, and though you may not credit it, I'm pretty good at doing it.

The other is moral, suggested by your "you are dismissing their experiences and dehumanizing them" language. That's where I balk, rather severely. I cannot tell the difference between those things you tell me that I have to accept (or if I don't, I'm dehumanizing people, bad me.) During my lifetime, segregation was the norm. "That's the way it's always been and how it's gotta be" from a song in Purlie, a Broadway musical my parents took me to when I was young.

So as far as I can tell, the current wave of gender essentialism is simply a reflection of the Status Quo. Of course, that's Holy and Correct. Still, I've lived a quarter century, and there seem to have been people arguing about how the Status Quo is Holy and Correct all my life.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of things in the atheist communities where one woman got offended, but fifty women thought it was just fine or great. Then when the one woman's offense gets made into an internet drama, there are all these admonitions to consider her representative of all women and ignore the fifty. This does not seem to me to be a plea to treat women the way women want but rather a plea to accept the viewpoint of a minority of women as to how all women should be treated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed, but I also thought that RD would be included in that circle of friends. Hopefully he will be once again.

Having met Dawkins once, I consider Rebecca's blog condemning Dawkin's reply to the affair to be undeserved. I've never met a more mild mannered polite proper man than Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

It doesn't bother me either and I'm a middle class, middle aged, heterosexual white woman. It's hard to believe my being from the age of the sexual revolution in the US and Rebecca being younger is the difference, but maybe that's it.

You know - it would be interesting to hear if RD draws a comparison to this incident as to why he doesn't debate creationists. While I'm not suggesting that he's being disingenuously quoted out of context by RW, PZ or PP; I do think it is fair to state that they are reading altogether too much seriousness into an issue that has been given far too much airplay. His original comment with the comparison to female oppression in the Muslim world certainly wasn't his finest argument, but to turn him into some sort of sexist villain is taking this to the point of idiocy. It may have been an imprudent and not entirely well-thought out line of reasoning from him, but he's hardly Chris Brown.

Here's the part of Rebecca's blog I just cannot relate to:

And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.

And then, for the past few years as the audience for Skepchick and SGU grew, I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.

Of course groping is disgusting, but I have a hard time believing this is some common behavior. I've been groped a couple times in my lifetime and the atmosphere this happens in is rare, not common.

But as for the other stuff, sheesh, get over yourself. Ignore the fools. There are plenty of men an intellectual woman can have a legit conversation with. They can't all be drooling ignoramuses. I meet with both a skeptic's group and an atheist group. I've never seen anyone objectify women in either group the way Rebecca is describing. And I've been to dozens of professional conferences. I've never had any trouble finding intelligent conversations to participate in.


Is this said unwanted attention really that much different from PZ being accosted regularly by Catholics and certain Christians, Dawkin's by Creationists, Plait by the Moon landing deniers, and Shermer by the 911 CTers?

 

[epepke]

Different but equal. Nobody here has seriously suggested separating men & women.

That makes it all better. So, now shall we have separate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H different elevators for men and women?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

My take on a liberated woman: When you are past being bothered by ignorant men, when you pay no attention to the occasional jerk, when you pay no mind whatsoever to a drunk in a hotel elevator at 4 am, you are on your way to being a liberated woman. When what you want and what you do is not inhibited or limited by these sexists, when you do what you want to do, go where you want to go, be who you want to be and men who would get in your way are no more than dust you flick off your shoulder, you are there.

 

[epepke]

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

My take on a liberated woman: When you are past being bothered by ignorant men, when you pay no attention to the occasional jerk, when you pay no mind whatsoever to a drunk in a hotel elevator at 4 am, you are on your way to being a liberated woman. When what you want and what you do is not inhibited or limited by these sexists, when you do what you want to do, go where you want to go, be who you want to be and men who would get in your way are no more than dust you flick off your shoulder, you are there.

To use another "antiquated" expression, right on, sister!

There was a lot of crud during those years, but there was a lot of good stuff, too.

I remember Rosie Greer singing "It's all right to cry. Crying gets the bad out of you. It's all right to cry. It might help you feel better."

I remember when it was OK to play with the "other gender's" toys or even wear the "other gender's" clothes. Nowadays, that gets a kid a trip to the doctor to be put on a gender-reassignment protocol. During the 60s, my mother was called into the kindergarden because I always wanted to play with the blocks and not the dolls. She patiently explained that I had dolls at home, but what I didn't have were those nice big blocks you could use to build things. (I wonder, do kids get blocks at school these days?)

During the 70s and 80s, my father stayed home and cooked and cleaned, and my mother worked. Nobody thought this was bizarre.

Since the 80s, however, some sort of gender essentialism has gripped the nation like some CBT tied to a clitoris ring. Ideas about what men and women are and always will be, which were ridiculous even in 1979, are considered rock-hard reality. I find that bizarre.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ignoring the larger sexism issues, I would personally have felt uncomfortable if someone I had never spoken to before asked me to go back to his room at 4am in an elevator.

Your being sensible is such a downer in this thread.

celebutante

The diamond in this thread full of rough. It is so good to have you posting on the board again.

My only unresolved issue is the fact that I DO genuinely think that (my friend) Ms. Watson has engaged in attention-seeking behaviour related to this incident. My evidence for this is her facebook post stating that she got a whole bunch of new twitter followers as a result of Richard Dawkins' somewhat snotty comment on a blog.

... trim a bit ...

- Rebecca does a terrific job of self-promotion. And yay for her - she is kind of a public figure now, so I'm not being judgmental here, I'm just calling it as I see it.
- We (the broader skeptical community) don't really have a lot of any substance to talk about, so lets all chime in on this one.

Is that popcorn-munching smiley still available?

Yes, rat cheer.

As is the goat, in case you get lonely for Afghanistan.

Different but equal. Nobody here has seriously suggested separating men & women.

After a few drinks, that might take a crowbar, given that TAM will be in Vegas ... or does what happens in Vegas no longer stay in Vegas?

Camera phones are becoming the curse of a good convention.

Ban them from TAM. That'll get things going!

 

[DarthFishy]

Your being sensible is such a downer in this thread.

I'll try not to let it happen again

 

[Hokulele]

OK, having read the OP and a few of the posts on the first page, having watched only the video of Rebecca's original presentation, and very little else, here are my thoughts on this.

To me, feminism is basically based on the idea that value should not be determined by one criteria only (in this case, gender). For example, if you are hiring stock clerks, physical strength may be a factor in your hiring decision. On average, men are stronger than women, so it is to be expected that the majority of the stock clerks will be men. However, it is unreasonable to expect that every candidate for the job must be male. There will be enough occasions where the strongest member of the candidate pool will be female to make "has penis" a job requirement ridiculous. Averages should be for insurance agents, not for HR employees.

With this in mind, the one thing that stood out the most for me in this whole flap is that it clearly conflated sexuality issues with gender issues, to no good end at all. From how I understand the original presentation, Rebecca is making the claim that a major reason why women are underrepresented at skepticism/atheism conferences is due to unwanted sexual advances/comments/etc. and therefore some men (not all) should learn proper social skills in order to encourage more female participation. I haven't seen any evidence (outside of anecdotes) that this is true in the first place, and it does seem a bit like reverse sexism in that the blame is laid exclusively at the feet of men.

I believe a more productive (a feministic!) approach to the issue of women and skepticism would be to determine why women do and do not attend these types of conventions, rather than leaping to a possibly unfounded conclusion. Many of these reasons may indeed be based on societal sexism, and would be an appropriate focus for skeptical feminists. For example, in the US, women on average make less than men. They may have financial reasons for not attending what is basically a recreational/personal interest convention. The pragmatic way to approach this would be to offer more grants, NOT specifically for women, but for anyone with a financial need which may end up benefitting more women than men for the societal reason. The idealistic way to approach this would be to encourage women to qualify and apply for higher paying jobs.

Another potential reason would be childcare issues. More women than men are responsible for raising small children, and may not be able to leave them unattended for long stretches of time. The pragmatic approach would be to offer childcare services at such conferences, and the idealistic approach would be to encourage men to embrace domestic matters.

In the short term, it would be valuable to look at examples of conferences that do draw women and find out why they do. For example, The Amazing Meeting does seem to have a relatively high percentage of female attendees. It might be beneficial to poll these attendees and find out things such as:

Is this your first skeptical event?
What attracted you to this one in particular?
Why haven't you attended this one before, or other similar events?
And so on...

Clearly I am not an expert in polling and market research, but it seems like this would be more productive and a better implementation of feminist ideals.

For the record, I am female and have worked in a highly male-dominated field for 20 years. I do give presentations at major conferences within the industry, and have never once been hit on, but have had many people come up to me either during the event, or in private afterwards, asking me about points in the presentation. Maybe I am just lucky, but none of it has ever made me uncomfortable.

 

[AvalonXQ]

For the record, I am female and have worked in a highly male-dominated field for 20 years. I do give presentations at major conferences within the industry, and have never once been hit on, but have had many people come up to me either during the event, or in private afterwards, asking me about points in the presentation. Maybe I am just lucky, but none of it has ever made me uncomfortable.

I wonder what percentage of those approaches would have been perceived by Watson to be objectifying come-ons. You see what you want to see.

 

[Hokulele]

I wonder what percentage of those approaches would have been perceived by Watson to be objectifying come-ons. You see what you want to see.

My educated guess would be "none of them". But please realize, my situation is completely different from Rebecca's. All of my public presentations are purely work-related, and because my income depends on this, I make every effort to keep things professional. That doesn't mean I won't add humor or personal asides, but I do try to keep my audience and public appearance in mind. I also never stay up to 4:00 am in a bar at any of these events. Rebecca's public face is much more personal, and staying up late in a bar is perfectly in line with what she does and how she does it. She will most definitely draw a different kind of attention to herself.

This is not to make any judgment on her behavior, just to point out why my experience differs. I mostly wanted to clarify that I am not completely unfamiliar with having a great deal of public exposure. Yes, you will have to take my word for this for now, as I do not share my real name and contact info in public areas of this forum precisely because I do like to keep personal and professional issues separate.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What do feminists want?

A level playing field. It really is that simple.